A New Kind of Ethics - Corporate First.

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates,
Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers.

Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from
the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being
secondary.

Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities
to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its
context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge.

He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal was
truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any
person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates.

While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and
therefore be happy.[7]

Notice this, Socrates has probably affected ethics for thousands of years after he wrote. However, he is talking about joy, about being good, about
caring for people and watching out for your fellow human.

Where we are now is not that place.

Our ethics are changing. For one thing, with women in the workforce, a lot of people seem to be putting work ahead of family. And with work usually
being for big corporations, it could end up being more about how much you can screw the other person over than it is about how much you could make the
world a better place.

I have proof for this, actually, as corporations tend to function in a similar manner to psychopaths when behavioral analysis is used to compare
behaviors. As they are now human, this is valid, right?

I actually don't mean to sound sexist here - not towards the corporations (what sex are they, exactly?), but towards women, I mean - I am picking up
what I read from a few BBC Business articles and reading between the lines. Personally, I don't like the world of big business or anything dealing
with it, I prefer community businesses - and you can see why I don't like the business world in a minute.

This next article is going to be about bonuses not being equal between men and women, and while I agree with that, it has some subtext that is
unrelated.

Of course, we are not going to be talking about the main topic of these articles, but reading between the lines.

Think like a wolf

Above all, be confident. Munich-based Anne Frisch, a former chief financial officer for many international companies, suggested approaching any
meeting about salary or bonus with a strong mental image that helps you remember that resources are limited and you need to fight for what you
deserve.

She has used imagery of a wolf fighting for food among its pack and a lioness defending her cubs. “This [visualisation] really gives me the drive to
claim my fair share,” said Frisch, now a board member for EPWN.

What I want to point out here is that feeling that you have to fight for what you deserve, and this survival of the fittest mentality (an interesting
one to appear in the U.S. and U.K. following my brief research into Nazi influence in the C.I.A.).

However, I do understand how that is a decent strategy to turn to given the financial crisis and the fact that a lot of people have been out of work.
It is kind of expected, honestly, and hopefully we can all relax again after a brief period of crazy... fights for dominance.

I have to digress and say that some of the article in this case was pleasant to read.

Madrid-based Marijo Bos learned this early in her career. While working as a headhunter, she heard co-workers talking, and realised that her male
counterparts’ total cash compensation was higher than hers. She immediately asked her supervisors about the discrepancy. Bos, who today is president
of the European Professional Women’s Network (EPWN), was lucky: After reviewing her file, her supervisors at that early job raised her salary and
bonus.

There are better ways to go about getting equal pay for equal work, however. Rather than waiting until the last minute, lay the groundwork throughout
the year. To maximise your earnings, ask if you are on track for the highest levels of compensation, make sure you know what kinds of accomplishments
lead to bonuses and raises and make sure your successes are clear to your supervisor.

So here we go, we are returning to a society where we are able to bring up important issues instead of ignoring them to be "polite" and "politically
correct." That's a plus, in some ways? Also, I'm glad that women are moving forward in the workplace.

My point, with regard to families, is more about families. Is the family more important, or is the corporation?

Is it possible that being too agreeable or too nice in your dealings with customers, colleagues, subordinates or supervisors? Could kindness be
holding you back in your career, or be stunting your ability to get a better deal? Several LinkedIn Influencers weighed in on the downside of nice
this week.

One example McKeown gave: “I once worked with just such an executive. He spoke with a soft, quiet voice. He never interrupted anyone... Every
time the team became [frustrated] and ready to make the change necessary to get to the next level he would stand up and say sweetly, ‘Oh, I just
wanted to remind you all of how far we have come.’ And after a few more sentences the spark of aspiration was gone from the room. He unintentionally
signalled the status quo was plenty good enough. There was no need to try harder or change how things were going.”

That attitude can make workers complacent. “The cumulative effect on your career can be dramatic,” McKeown wrote.

How can you tell if your manager is so nice that he or she is hurting your career?

There is definitely a point here about being up-front and combative and cut-throat to get ahead, and in our society, it is not a bad choice to make -

But look where the direction of the compass has shifted. It is not about community, or about making sure everyone is happy, or even about making sure
you are happy, or about making sure your non-existent family is happy.

The focus has shifted to the corporation, and to money, and to power, and to individual social Darwinism, quite honestly.

You have to look where the moral compass is pointing to understand what these articles are really saying. What caused the shift? Sure, the articles
give great ways to increase your money and individual power and corporate profits.

But what about ways to increase happiness, or build your personal life, or family life, or anything besides what a corporation wants from your
soul?

If you think about small businesses, for example, a local tavern back in the day, the owner would probably benefit from being altruistic and a good
host. He might even know who he is renting out his rooms to and make sure they are doing okay.

But in today's world, it is better to cut corners wherever possible to make the most money.

Growing up with a high ethical standard has presented a lot of internal conflicts when being confronted with how the world works. I do not blame my
elders for providing a more idealist ethical framework rather than a more realistic one. In learning from their past mistakes we are just trying to
move towards a better world.

The part about self awareness in defining your own ethics came across as an unusual connection at first, but does make a lot of sense on reflection.
Awareness of our repercussions is also an important factor in developing ethics. Just because you may not see the chicken in the cage or pig in the
pen as we buy our cheep food does not limit our responsibility, ownership and participation of these practices. As a consumer we may be ignorant,
misinformed or in denial with the influence of our decisions, but it is still our decisions and actions that define who we are and the world we live
in.

As for good guys coming last, if you are playing life by a different set of rules then comparisons are hard to make. If one side is playing basket
ball they will get a lot of hoops, with the other side playing base ball they will get more home runs.

What's goin on with that white haired guy in the last photo and how does that relate to the thread? I read it twice and couldn't find anything that
seemed to explain the presence of this photo. It looks like someone being detained at some kind of gathering like a town hall meeting. I can see how
the general topic of detaining a person could definitely be related to ethics, but other than that, I'm left clueless.

I certainly enjoyed the Socrates stuff

and how it compares with modern ideas. Modern ideas suck! Go ancients!

kwakakev
As for good guys coming last, if you are playing life by a different set of rules then comparisons are hard to make. If one side is playing basket
ball they will get a lot of hoops, with the other side playing base ball they will get more home runs.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.